"Intelligent Design" & Public Schools

“if its not science, its useless to further science.

Fine, whatever - irrelevant to this discussion.

so what? people have seen einstein (maybe it is a mass conspiracy, and einstein didnt exist). no one on this side of the Curtain have seen god.

And you know this how?

the reason im not touching your bizarre tangent is because it is such a complete and utter twisting of what i said into what i didnt say. if youre going to so profoundly misunderstand, i dont even know where to begin setting you straight.

If by "tangent" you're referring to when I responded to your remark about 'predictive results' - then are you taking back your comment about predictive results under the realization that it is a tangent? Either both of our comments are a tangent, or neither. I don't know how you could possibly know if I have "twisted" what you said, because I haven't commented on it other than ask a question about it. I'm wondering if an honest answer to my question would leave you in a precarious situation.”

“And you know this how?

well, if they have, im still waiting for the evidence

I'm wondering if an honest answer to my question would leave you in a precarious situation.��

any answer to your question is pointless because einstein the man is irrelevant to the discussion. einsteins theory of speed of gravity is whats relevant

i know you think youre real cute and clever with your socratic method, always asking questions and never answering. its a real clever out, really, cuz whenever somebody sees thru your b.s., you can say "well i never said that" clever. really. truly
last edited: 12/11/07 8:37:08 AM”

“any answer to your question is pointless because einstein the man is irrelevant to the discussion. einsteins theory of speed of gravity is whats relevant

False. Einstein the man is relevant to the discussion. You are claiming that an "intelligent designer" can only be recognized by science if he/she/it produces predictive results. I am saying that you have a different standard for a designer than you do for other theories. On one hand, you say it's imperative to the discussion that a designer has predictive results, and on another you're saying that Einstein is irrelevant to the discussion unless he produces predictive results. I am demonstrating your double standard on your own test.

I know you think youre real cute and clever with your socratic method, always asking questions and never answering.

As you can see, the premise to your question is in question. That is the whole point. Scientists only want to have this discussion if they can ask the questions, and those questions are not questioned. I am saying that you have a double standard. You want to ask questions of IDers, but not hold the scientists to the same questions. That is my whole point in this discussion. It has nothing to do with some secretive plan to be able to say "I never said that", but everything to do with exposing the fact that there is a double standard on the questions being asked. Have we been having this debate the whole time and you haven't yet realized that is what my point is? If so, you're not paying attention. Maybe spend less time making comments like "you think youre real cute and clever", and calling my methods "BS", and spend more time listening to both sides of the debate.
last edited: 12/11/07 8:45:37 AM”

“To clarify, I am using Einstein as an analogy.

Einstein is to the creation of scientific theories, as an intelligent designer is to the creation of the universe.

If the ID must currently produce predictive results, so must Einstein.

Instead of the test you proposed, a more accurate test would say "The universe must currently produce predictive results."”

“on another you're saying that Einstein is irrelevant to the discussion unless he produces predictive results

YES! no one gives two shirts if EINSTEIN produces predictive results. what matters is if EINSTEINS THEORY gets predictive results AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! (pounds head into wall)

You want to ask questions of IDers, but not hold the scientists to the same questions

i get your point. you think theres a double standard

Scientists only want to have this discussion if they can ask the questions

thats what science is, little girl. asking questions. a scientific theory should hold up under intense scrutiny

its 2 oclock in the morning. im going to bed.”

“YES! no one gives two shirts if EINSTEIN produces predictive results. what matters is if EINSTEINS THEORY gets predictive results

I bet you wrote that before you saw my post that followed it. You're right! What matters is if EINSTEINS THEORY gets predictive results. Now you're getting it.”

“If the ID must currently produce predictive results, so must Einstein.

no no no. a THEORY regarding an intelligent designer must produce predictive results, but it cant because an intelligent designer is much too large of a variable. apparently i shouldve been more explicit”

“now will you get off this thing about einstein being dead?”

“no no no. a THEORY regarding an intelligent designer must produce predictive results, but it cant because an intelligent designer is much too large of a variable. apparently i shouldve been more explicit

But I'm saying it musn't. The theory that Einstein once existed must produce predictive results according to your rule to prove that designers (in this case, of theories) existed. Does the theory that Einstein existed produce predictive results? If so, what are they?
last edited: 12/11/07 9:13:26 AM”

“That's what I thought, Sarge. You're not willing to put what you believe in your words open to examination. You have a little game you desperately want someone to play with you, only everyone else can see how ridiculous it is.”

“You guys have strayed a bit from the argument, which is ID and public schools. Should the creation myth be taught in public schools? There is no way to prove or disprove ID, so should it be taught to public school children?”

“You're not willing to put what you believe in your words open to examination.

What I am not willing to do is to put what I believe in my words open to a false-examination, one where the standard is different for me than it is for scientists.”

“You guys have strayed a bit from the argument, which is ID and public schools.

We have not strayed at all from the argument. The argument is dependent upon whether or not ID is science. I am arguing that it is as much science as other things that are taught in science class. Others are arguing that it is not. Sorry you were confused.”

“What I am not willing to do is to put what I believe in my words open to a false-examination, one where the standard is different for me than it is for scientists. - Sarge

Right, you'd rather play your little game. There's no reason for you not to do it other than personal insecurity or that you know you are full of $hit. Knowing ID, I'd say the latter.

ETA: I'll have to leave at that and let you have the last word. In 15 minutes, I'm leaving work for vacation and won't be back until January.
last edited: 12/11/07 9:44:44 AM”

“�You guys have strayed a bit from the argument, which is ID and public schools.

We have not strayed at all from the argument. The argument is dependent upon whether or not ID is science. I am arguing that it is as much science as other things that are taught in science class. Others are arguing that it is not. Sorry you were confused.�
Sarge
9:32:27 AM

You didn't answer the question. Should ID and the creation myth be taught in public schools?”

“Should ID and the creation myth be taught in public schools?

I don't think by posing the question that way you should expect an answer. Do you?”

“Ok, I will rephrase the question. Should ID and creation myths be taught in public school? I was only focusing on one, the Judeo-Christian creation story. Maybe you would agree that more groups should be included. If we decide to include creation in the lesson plans taught to public school children then all creation stories should be included. Our nation has citizens that worship in religions from around the globe. All their creation stories would have to be represented and taught.
last edited: 12/11/07 11:01:26 AM”

“To use your own words bateauxdriver, "You (guys) have strayed a bit from the argument, which is ID and public schools."


last edited: 12/11/07 11:07:07 AM”

“So if you aren't going to teach creation stories in your ID classes what do you intend to teach in place of evolution?”

“So if you aren't going to teach creation stories in your ID classes what do you intend to teach in place of evolution?

non sequitor”

“I'm confused. I thought it was ID vs. Big Bang not ID vs. evolution.”

“lumberzac, that's why I said �To use your own words bateauxdriver, "You (guys) have strayed a bit from the argument, which is ID and public schools."”

“Check her ID and if she's old enough, try for the Big Bang.”

“Ok what do you want to teach in place of the Big Bang Theory? You desire an alternate to the Big Bang Theory be taught what is it exactly? Are aliens and UFO's contribtion to ID also to be taught in public schools?”

“Ok what do you want to teach in place of the Big Bang Theory? You desire an alternate to the Big Bang Theory be taught what is it exactly? Are aliens and UFO's contribtion to ID also to be taught in public schools?

bateauxdriver - I've got to ask this. Have you been following this debate at all, because it doesn't sound like it. I don't know of anybody who is interesting in teaching something in place of big bang theory. Maybe you could explain to us what you're referring to?”

“George Carlin on UFO's and ID.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue-gDpI_080”

“Ah ... so now we bring out the jokes. Got it. Now I'm following where you're coming from. Thanks.”

“Sarge I'm just playing around here but I'm also trying to make a point that ID does not belong in public schools. I pay good money to have my kids educated in the Catholic school system. I want them to be taught the values and beliefs of the Catholic Church. That is a personal choice that I have made for my children. I however would not want religion taught in the form of ID taught to my children in a public school. Religion is a personal choice and should be separate from the government. I doubt most folks pushing the ID agenda in public schools would be in favor of all religions being taught.”

“
Sarge I'm just playing around here but I'm also trying to make a point that ID does not belong in public schools.

Well, by demonstrating how much you don't know what ID is, it's going to be difficult for you to make that point.

Religion is a personal choice and should be separate from the government.

Well, by demonstrating how much you don't know what ID is, it's going to be difficult for you to make that point.”

“Both of you miss one point.

ID doe not exclude big bangs or evolution.....”

“The theory that Einstein once existed must produce predictive results

o jesus leaping christ. no one is theorizing that einstein existed, because its not necessary, because we KNOW he existed

but whatever, i'll play your game. i predict that if given the time, resources, and inclination, i could find people who have known einstein, i could finds scores and scores of quantifiable proof of his existence, that could be put into terms that are easily understood by my peeers

i could test it by actually attempting all those things”

“ID doe not exclude big bangs or evolution

this is true

however, most people cant separate the big bang and evolution from random chance and natural selection. i therefore fall into the bad habit of treating the two as if they are mutually exclusive, when in fact they are not

most people cant wrap their head around the concept that evolution doesnt exclude god, but natural selection does. so oftentimes, when i say evolution, i really should be saying natural selection”

“What I am not willing to do is to put what I believe in my words open to a false-examination

thats exactly what youre doing. youre misrepresenting the points others, including myself, bring up.

sour grapes. "well, you wont like my ideas so i wont tell you my ideas. i win"


last edited: 12/11/07 6:03:56 PM”

“but whatever, i'll play your game. i predict that if given the time, resources, and inclination, i could find people who have known einstein, i could finds scores and scores of quantifiable proof of his existence, that could be put into terms that are easily understood by my peeers

i could test it by actually attempting all those things

You might want to rethink that. You yourself said you need to find "proof" of his existence to show verifiable results. That's circular logic. In all seriousness, there are other things you could try to look for that would give predictive results that won't require circular logic. I wouldn't want you to use circular logic, considering that's one of the biggest complaint of the IDers by the scientists.

re: sour grapes - I will gladly tell you my ideas, like I have been. What I will not do is give you an answer based on a question that itself is a double standard.”

“Can a buzzard touch his wingtips together with no socks on?”

“How do you know there isn't a testable, (falsifiable) proposition? Just because you haven't seen any? For that matter, if I haven't seen any, does that prove there aren't any, even though I'm an IDer?”
Sarge
6:00:11 AM
12/11/07

I argue that it would be hard for ID to come up with any because it is really isn't a theory its more of a general claim: "Somebody, somehow with some kind of powers musta done it."

Coming up with testable and falsfiable propositions which then pass muster is the hallmark of a scientific perspective. Its the sine qua non. If ID claims to have scientific standing it needs to do this. When and if a version of ID can produce a long train of falsifiable propositions, which have been tested and supported, then it deserves to be taken seriously as a science.

Proving the non-existence of something is much harder than proving the existence. You only need one to prove that such a thing exists. Until some version of ID can provide some track record of empirical tests supporting falsifiable propositions, the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory will be just as scientific as any other version of ID.”

“I argue that it would be hard for ID to come up with any because it is really isn't a theory its more of a general claim: "Somebody, somehow with some kind of powers musta done it."

It is as much a theory as any other 'theory' that the test is currently unknown. I can name some "science" theories which have an unknown or yet unproven test if you'd like.

Coming up with testable and falsfiable propositions which then pass muster is the hallmark of a scientific perspective. Its the sine qua non. If ID claims to have scientific standing it needs to do this. When and if a version of ID can produce a long train of falsifiable propositions, which have been tested and supported, then it deserves to be taken seriously as a science.

Once again, (sigh), that is a different standard than scientists have for several (off the top of my head) self-proclaimed "scientific theories".

Proving the non-existence of something is much harder than proving the existence. You only need one to prove that such a thing exists. Until some version of ID can provide some track record of empirical tests supporting falsifiable propositions, the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory will be just as scientific as any other version of ID.

... once again ...

So pedxing, care to answer my 2 questions from the last couple days? I numbered them "1" and "2". It is directly related to your post.”

“By the way, "ID" isn't a person. It won't come up with anything. It is the theory itself. There are many scientists who believe in ID theory, so they have a long train of falsifiable propositions themselves. So, I don't know how "ID" can come up with a "long train of falsifiable propositions", unless you mean that scientists, who have a "long train of falsifiable propositions", come up with one for ID.”

“So which specific scientific facts support a theory about a "designer"?”

“Set your date-range to "all" and start reading.

You'll see from the gitgo I was debating using true science instead of the warped political laden pseudo science that the leftests insist upon so much.”

“That's what I thought.”

“So you didn't read it? That's what I thought.

It is interesting to read from the beginning. I find it exhilarating just how brilliant I am when reading those old posts.

Read from the beginning and read how the "scientists" on here hypocritically try to redefine science to fit their needs. It's a good read, Mutt, seriously.”

“�Sarge: First of all tracing when and how psychology became a science isn't science it's history. - pedxing


Do you realize how absurd that is? You made the claim that there are certain requirements for a field to be considered science, and I simply asked you when those requirements were met with psychology. If it happened just in the last 130 years, there should be NO problem determining when it happened, right? I mean, this isn't rocket science here. (get it?)

How can psychology "gradually" become science? Are you saying determining if something is science is a grey area? There is no black and white there? Are you saying that there is room for interpretation?

Why are you changing your story? I honestly thought you would have an answer that supported your previous statements, or at least tried to!

This is all very disappointing pedxing.

We're talking about SCIENCE here pedxing. I want to be able to test if something is science by using the scientific method.

Don't let me down.�
Sarge
2:17:44 AM
2/08/06”

“So your "scientific facts" are not what traditional scientists would call scientific.

Again, which specific facts, (regardless of their scientificness), support a designer theory?”

“No, "traditional" scientists would call my facts science. That's my point. It's the new-age non-traditional scientists who base their "science" on their own various social religions.”

“By the way, as I read over this thread, it's blazingly obvious that I spent the whole thread trying to debate scientific knowledge while you and others just wanted to throw around personal attacks.

so typical ...... so typical ......”

“That's great. The philosophy of science is indeed interesting.

Again, which specific facts, (regardless of their scientificness), support a designer theory? - Mutt”

“Mutt, to answer your question, here are 2 off the top of my head ...

1. thermodynamics - You can't get something from nothing using Newtonian physics. You have to eventually go outside the dimension in which we live to find a probable source of the creation of matter and energy. The big-bang theory and the newest explanations that the singularity came from "another universe" is circular logic.

2. scientific fine-tuning - Too many attributes of the universe are fine-tuned with such precision, none of them could be by chance, and certainly no statistician could argue that all of them could happen at once. Only a designer could fine-tune the universe like it is, the mathematical explanation of chance doesn't hold water at any level.
last edited: 3/17/08 11:03:52 AM”

“pick one if you want to debate me - I'll be more than happy to provide more specifics if you need them.
last edited: 3/17/08 11:04:30 AM”

“This thread again?”